a study on building energy labeling to support the … · a study on building energy labeling to...

A Study on Building Energy Labeling to Support the Uptake of Building Energy Code

18.03.2015 Dr.-Ing. Robert Himmler Tassamon Suppamit

2 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015

Content

1. Background to this study

2. Evaluation of BEC for 257 Buildings in Thailand

3. Suggestions for tightening the BEC

4. Suggestions for energy performance labelling of buildings

5. Suggestions for implementation of energy performance labelling


Background to this study

• Building Energy Code (BEC) was developed in Thailand since 1995 and approved by Cabinet in 2009

• After first development, BEC standards did not change, while technology may have improved over past 10 years

• Thailand’s Energy Efficiency Development Plan (EEDP) sees BEC implementation as high priority

• Thailand’s EEDP suggests to introduce and implement Building Energy Labels

Objective of the study

• In order to improve uptake of Building Energy Code, it is relevant to know what is the state of the art in energy efficiency of new buildings

• Analysis of state of the art may lead to adjustment of BEC standards • In order to introduce Building Energy Labels, (adjusted) BEC

standards should be basis for labels


Evaluation of BEC for Buildings in Thailand


How the Building Energy Code works

Thai Building Energy Code (BEC)

System Performance Compliance

Whole Building Energy Compliance

Roof Thermal Transfer Value RTTVP<RTTVR

Lighting Power Density

LPDP<LPDR

coefficient of performance (of an air-conditioning system)

COPP >COPR

Overall Thermal Transfer Value OTTVP<OTTVR

Proposed Building

Reference Building <


Analyses of building data

Goal

• How do existing, new and rewarded buildings perform in comparison with BEC standards?

• What does this mean for possible adjustment of BEC standard?

Sources • 66 Existing Buildings: DEDE (“Dr. Pattana – Study”, 2009); age of

the buildings: not known • 205 New Buildings: DEDE (3 consultants: SU (2010), Phoenix

(2012), KMITL (2013)); age of buildings : corresponding to study • 15 Rewarded Buildings 1: DEDE (DEDE Label (Version 1 with

environmental information (2007 – 2010); age of buildings: renovation projects and new construction

• 7 Rewarded Buildings 2: “Dr. Atch – Buildings” (Buildings with Green building certification); age of buildings: new buildings


Overview of evaluated buildings

A total of 257 buildings!

Building Type

Public Buildings Private Buildings Total

Existing Building

New Building

Rewarded Building

Existing Building

New Building

Rewarded Building

Buildings

Office Building 19 28 3 0 4 1 55

Department store 0 0 0 4 1 3 8

Condominium 9 2 1 6 24 0 42

Hospital 2 33 0 0 0 0 35

Hotel 2 5 0 1 6 0 14

Educational Institute 15 74 0 0 0 0 89

Convention Building 5 9 0 0 0 0 14


Data analysed in this study

- OTTV (Overall Thermal Transfer Value) - RTTV (Roof Thermal Transfer Value) - LPD (Lighting Power Density) - COP (Coefficient of Performance) was not possible,

because data was missing - Whole building energy compliance

The following diagrams represent office buildings only, however results can be transferred to the other building types.


Average OTTV in Office

• Existing Buildings perform better than new buildings • Technically it is no problem to achieve lower

OTTV values (rewarded buildings) • Rewarded Buildings already perform much better

than current BEC requirement


Comparison of existing and new office buildings

Existing Buildings (KMUTT Campus) Rewarded Buildings

Façade Properties (low OTTV): • Single glazing • No coating • Window to wall ratio: <50 % • Fully shaded

Façade Properties (low

OTTV): • Double glazing • Coating • Fully glazed • No shading (internal)

New Buildings

Façade Properties (high

OTTV): • single glazing • tinted glazing • Fully glazed • No shading (internal)

Future (super low OTTV): • Double glazing • Window to wall ratio: <50 % • Fully shaded


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 t

o 1

0

10

to

20

20

to

30

30

to

40

40

to

50

50

to

60

60

to

70

70

to

80

80

to

90

90

to

10

0

10

0 t

o 1

10

11

0 t

o 1

20

12

0 t

o 1

30

13

0 t

o 1

40

14

0 t

o 1

50

15

0 t

o 1

60

> 1

60

Nu

mb

er

of

bu

ildin

gs [

-]

OTTV [W/m2]

Statistical Analyses of OTTV in Office Buildings

Rewarded Buildings (4)

New Buildings (32)

Existing Buildings (19)

OTTV in Office

Fail Pass

Limit Value of OTTV

• Around 60 % of all buildings fail system compliance of BEC

• OTTV limit is strict enough, but must be enforced!


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

BEC Reference Value Existing Buildings (19) New Buildings (32) Rewarded Buildings (4)

RT

TV [

W/m

2]

Average RTTV in Office Buildings

Average RTTV in Office

• Existing Buildings perform better than new buildings!

• Technically it is no problem to achieve lower RTTV values (rewarded buildings)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 t

o 5

5 t

o 1

0

10

to

15

15

to

20

20

to

25

25

to

30

30

to

35

35

to

40

40

to

45

45

to

50

50

to

55

55

to

60

60

to

65

65

to

70

70

to

75

75

to

80

> 8

0

Nu

mb

er

of

bu

ildin

gs [

-]

RTTV [W/m2]

Statistical Analyses of RTTV in Office Buildings


New Buildings (32)


RTTV in Office

Fail Pass

• Around 30 % of all buildings fail BEC • RTTV limit is strict enough, but must

be enforced!

BEC Limit Value of RTTV


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

BEC Reference Value Existing Buildings (19) New Buildings (32) Rewarded Buildings (4)

LPD

[W

/m2]

Average LPD in Office Buildings

Average Lighting Power Density (LPD) in Office

• All building types are 1/3 below current LPD limit • Therefore LPD has to be tightened • Suggestion: 10 W/m2 (ASHRAE: 9,7 W/m2)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 t

o 2

2 t

o 4

4 t

o 6

6 t

o 8

8 t

o 1

0

10

to

12

12

to

14

14

to

16

16

to

18

18

to

20

> 2

0

Nu

mb

er

of

bu

ildin

gs [

-]

LPD [W/m2]

Statistical Analyses of LPD in Office Buildings


New Buildings (32)


LPD in Office

Fail Pass

BEC Limit Value of LDP


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Existing Buildings (19) New Buildings (32)

Ene

rgy

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n [

kWh

/m2a]

Average Energy Consumption in Office Buildings

Average EnergyConsumption(Reference) of OfficeBuildings [kWh/m2a]

Average EnergyConsumption(Proposed) of OfficeBuildings [kWh/m2a]

Average End Energy Results (Existing & New

Building)

• All buildings fulfil BEC requirements, although OTTV & RTTV is often not sufficient

• Bad OTTV & RTTV is compensated by savings due to LPD (reason: LPD easy to fulfil!)


Statistical Analyses of whole building compliance

in Office Buildings

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 t

o 5

5 t

o 1

0

10

to

15

15

to

20

20

to

25

25

to

30

30

to

35

35

to

40

40

to

45

45

to

50

50

to

55

55

to

60

60

to

65

65

to

70

70

to

75

75

to

80

> 8

0

Nu

mb

er

of

bu

ildin

gs [

-]

Energy savings compare to reference building [%]

Statistical Analyses of Whole Building Compliance in Office Buildings


New Buildings (32)


Because of lax LPD requirements savings seem to be substantial


Conclusions of the BEC analysis in 257 buildings

• All office buildings can meet “whole building energy compliance” of BEC, even though they often have unsatisfactory RTTV and OTTV (insulation levels of building envelope)

• An important reason for this seems to be the LPD requirement, which is “Not strict Enough”

• New buildings “glazed facades” with low insulation levels can be reasons for new buildings performing worse than old buildings

• “Rewarded buildings” perform much better than BEC standards!


Suggestions for tightening the BEC


What is the influence of tightened LPD on the

whole building energy compliance?

Approach: Definition of an hypothetical building and

calculation of energy demand with existing BEC and

tightened BEC (LPD-limit at: 10 W/m2)

• Office building (11 floors)

• Brick wall (no insulation)

• Single glazing

• External overhang shading (SHC = 0.5)

• Lighting power density (LPD): 10 W/m2

• Split units with COP = 2.82


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

OTTV RTTV LPD COP

Co

olin

g Lo

ad [

W/m

2]

/ C

OP

[-]

Comparison of proposed and reference building (system compliance)

Reference Building

Proposed Building

System Compliance failed!

Bad building envelope (no system compliance!)

“Average” lighting


Whole building compliance passed!

1928

4

423

24

5647

103 103

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

ReferenceBuilding ProposedBuilding

Floorrelatedelectricenergydeman

d[kW

h/m

2a]

Comparisonofproposedandreferencebuilding(wholebuildingcompliance)

Ligh ng&Equipment

ACduetoInternalGains

ACduetoVen la on

ACduetoBuildingEnvelope

bad building envelope

average lighting

LPD 15 W/m2


Whole building compliance after tightening of

LPD (10 W/m2) failed!

1928

4

421

24

47

47

91

103

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

ReferenceBuilding ProposedBuilding

Floorrelatedelectricenergydeman

d[kW

h/m

2a]

Comparisonofproposedandreferencebuilding(wholebuildingcompliance)

Ligh ng&Equipment

ACduetoInternalGains

ACduetoVen la on

ACduetoBuildingEnvelope

building envelope has to be improved!

LPD 10 W/m2


Recommendations for new LPD requirements

Building Type Actual BEC

[W/m2] Average LPD*

[W/m2] ASHRAE 90.1

[W/m2] Suggested

BEC [W/m2]

Office Building 14 9 9.7 10

Department store 18 7 15.1 15

Condominium 12 5 6.6 8

Hospital 12 8 13 10

Hotel 12 6.5 10.8 10

Educational Institute

14 8 10.7 10

Convention center 18 9 11.6 12

* Building analysis results


Energy savings through tightened LPD for an

example building with different uses

Building Type

Current Reference Suggested Reference Tightening

[%] LPD [W/m2]

*Energy Demand

[kWh/m2a] LPD

[W/m2] *Energy Demand

[kWh/m2a]

Office Building 14 103 10 91 11.7

Department store 18 207 15 191 7.8

Condominium 12 348 8 291 16.4

Hospital 12 348 10 325 6.6

Hotel 12 348 10 325 6.6

Educational Institute 14 103 10 91 11.7

Convention center 18 207 12 174 15.9

* The Value of Energy Demand are calculated from hypothetical building in simplified BEC model.


Conclusions adjustment BEC levels

• To tighten BEC requirements it is sufficient to reduce lighting power requirements.

• This will “automatically” lead to higher whole building energy requirements.

• Suggestions for LPD limit values are derived by ASHRAE and the study on Thai BEC.

• New whole building energy requirements will save between 6,6 %

and 16,4 % energy depending on the building type.


Suggestions for energy performance labelling of

buildings


A labeling system has been developed by Prof. Surapong

(as in EEDP)

Suggested Labelling Scheme on the bases of BEC Calculation Method:

BEC: Current Building Energy Code HEPS: Higher Energy Performance Standard Level ECON: Economic level NZEB: Net zero energy buildings level developed on bases of life cycle cost (LCC) calculation for energy saving

measures suggested requirements are economically efficient!


OTTV requirements according to a labeling

system developed by Prof.Surapong (as in EEDP)

OTTV [W/m2] Current

BEC Suggested

BEC BEC+ HEPS HEPS+ ECON ECON+ NZEB

Office Building 50 50 40 30 25 20 17.5 15

Department Store

40 40 32.5 25 20 15 12.5 10

Condominium 30 30 22.5 15 12.5 10 8.75 7.5

Hospital 30 30 22.5 15 12.5 10 8.75 7.5

Hotel 30 30 22.5 15 12.5 10 8.75 7.5


50 50 40 30 25 20 17.5 15

Convention Center 40 40 32.5 25 20 15 12.5 10


Lighting requirements according to a labeling

system developed by Prof. Surapong (as in EEDP)

LPD [W/m2] Current

BEC Suggested


Office Building 14 10 9.5 9 7.5 6 3.5 1

Department Store

18 15 13.5 12 10 8 7 6

Condominium 12 8 7.5 7 6.5 5 4.5 4

Hospital 12 10 9 8 6.5 5 4.5 4

Hotel 12 10 9 8 6.5 5 4.5 4


14 10 9.5 9 7.5 6 4 2

Convention Center 18 12 11.5 11 10 8 7 6


Suggestion for Building Energy Label Scheme

Possible Label Current

BEC Suggested


Label becomes minimum BEC requirement

2015 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034

1 2 3 4 5

G F E D C B A


Timeline of BEC on the example of a office

building

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ActualBEC(2015)

SuggestedBEC

(2016)

BEC+(2019)

HEPS(2022)

HEPS+(2025)

ECON(2028)

ECON+(2031)

NZEB(2034)

EnergySavingcomparedtoactualBEC

(%)

PowerDensity(W/m

2)

OTTV[W/m2] RTTV[W/m2] LPD[W/m2] EnergySaving[%]

2015 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034

BEC

BEC =Suggested

BEC

BEC =BEC+

BEC =HEPS

BEC =HEPS+

BEC =ECON

BEC =ECON+

BEC =NZEP


How to achieve building labels on the example of

OTTV

Current


Orientation South South South South South South South

WWR 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%

Overhang [m] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Components

Glazing:

Uf =5.8 W/m2K SHGC = 80%

Wall:

15 cm Brick

Glazing:

Uf =3.53 W/m2K SHGC = 44%

Wall:

15 cm Brick5 cm

Glazing:

Uf =3.53 W/m2K SHGC = 44%

Wall:

15 cm light weight concrete

Glazing:

Uf =3.53 W/m2K SHGC = 44%

Wall:

15 cm Brick 5 cm Insulation (k=0.04W/mK)

Glazing:

Uf =3.53 W/m2K SHGC = 44%

Wall:


Glazing:

Uf =1.65 W/m2K SHGC = 20%

Wall:

15 cm Concrete (light weight : density 620 kg/m3)

Glazing:

Uf =1.65 W/m2K SHGC = 20%

Wall:


OTTVP[W/m2] 46.21 34.66 29.42 20.64 17.37 17.03 10.82

OTTVRef

[W/m2] 50 40 30 25 20 17.5 15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Reference

Rewarded Building

OTTV [W/m2]

Are the labeling requirements technically achievable?

OTTV comparison of rewarded office buildings

One office building already meets ECON label!

Several office buildings already meet HEPS label

All rewarded office buildings meet new suggested BEC label

Current

BEC

Suggested


Bui

ldin

g N

o.6

Bui

ldin

g N

o.8

Bui

ldin

g N

o.2

Bui

ldin

g N

o.18

Bui

ldin

g N

o.7

Bui

ldin

g N

o.4

Bui

ldin

g N

o.15

Bui

ldin

g N

o.13

Bui

ldin

g N

o.5

Bui

ldin

g N

o.17

Bui

ldin

g N

o.16

Bui

ldin

g N

o.14


Conclusions

• Study on 257 buildings shows, that they all fulfil BEC whole building energy requirements

• Current BEC should be tightened by reducing LPD requirements, which will indirectly lead to an improved building envelope

• EEDP suggests building energy labels, which can be used for a future tightening of the BEC

• Energy labels can be used for financial incentive schemes (will be discussed in the afternoon session)

The Joint Graduate School of Energy & Environment

King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi 126 Pracha-uthit Rd., Bangmod, Tungkru Bangkok 10140 Thailand

Thank you for your Attention!

a study on building energy labeling to support the … · a study on building energy labeling to...

Documents